Justice O’Connor….no, the other one.

I attended the Republican Women’s Club Luncheon today in order to hear Justice Maureen O’Connor speak. She is up for reelection this fall, and is opposed by Joseph Russo, a Cuyahoga County judge with about eight years’ experience. I don’t have any personal issues with her, and as I understand it, she’s done a pretty good job while at her post. She shook my hand when I was sworn into the Ohio bar, and that’s probably the only encounter I’ve personally had with her so far. So, I went in with an open mind to listen to what she had to say about the Ohio justice system, and to get an idea of whether or not I would vote for her in the fall. I like to see more women in office.

I will admit that she is a very capable justice, and I have no doubt that she would hold her own in a room full of male judges. However, I disliked the way that she bandied about the popular phrases, “Judicial Activism“, “Tort Reform“, and “The McDonald’s Coffee Case“. I have already expressed my views on the fallacy of “judicial activism” - it is turning out to be nothing but a term given to those decisions that one personally disagrees with. Additionally, “Tort reform” is so 2001, folks. That was just another scare tactic based on the “McDonald’s Coffee Case”. Want to know the real story behind the case? It was a reasonable person who asked for a reasonable sum of money for a serious burn, and the jury awarded two days’ McDonald’s coffee profits to her. That’s all. It’s not a case of runaway juries or greedy trial lawyers, although it’s become quite a catchphrase for politicians, regardless of their affiliation.

All three of the above terms represent the stereotypes in the mind of the average American about the justice system. Justice O’Connor mentioned that the judicial branch is the least understood branch, and the local races for judicial seats go largely unnoticed as compared to the other elected positions. Still, by using the above phrases, she is just serving to perpetuate the cycle by empowering these buzz words.

Something I found interesting about her speech…she mentioned how she felt that uninformed voters shouldn’t even vote, they should just stay home. That’s one of those things that I think to myself sometimes, but if I was running for office, I wouldn’t dare say it while stumping in a small town with a population that mostly boasts high school degrees. People say Democrats are elitist? Come on. Republicans (especially wealthy white female republicans) are just as guilty of “elitism” as a Yale-educated, free-trade-coffee drinkin’ liberal.

Another interesting thing she said - she mentioned that when voters (who don’t normally vote) get out and vote, inequitable results ensue. She said that they are more likely to blindly vote a one-party ticket. And then she specifically mentioned Obama. Yes. She started talking about all of the “uneducated” (sorry, “uninformed”) Barack supporters who are going to vote Democratic tickets in the fall and screw up the natural order of things. But, according to exit polls, Obama solidly garnered the support of educated folks, and Hillary had the white working-class folk backing her. Who could Justice O’Connor POSSIBLY be referring to? HMMMMM?

At that point, in my eyes she became just another flapping-head politician playing the “race” and “fear” cards to win over the votes of all of the elderly women in the room, using outdated buzz words with no real substance. That’s just it. She lacked substance. She parroted the same bull that she hears on cable news networks. Nothing new. No real insight. I sure hope her opponent has something better to offer. Looks like I’m not the only one doubting her. She stood there and criticized Russo as “lacking any appellate court experience”. She sure as hell didn’t sit on an appellate court before she got the big job, and she worked as a judge for only two years.

I had better stop there. I know that I am prohibited from knowingly making any false statements or criticism of the judiciary. Still, I feel that if you’re a judge/political candidate, and you say something stupid in public, I should wholly be able to point and laugh without repercussion. You opened the door, lady. I’m unimpressed.

Neat book meme.

Neato unread book meme from Kevin and Jill:

Below is a list of the top 106 books tagged “unread” on LibraryThing. The rules:
bold = what you’ve read,
italics = books you started but couldn’t finish
crossed out = books you hated
* = you’ve read more than once
underline = books you own but haven’t read yourself

My picks, after the fold.

Continue reading »

‘Darth Vader’ spared jail in Jedi church attacks

A man who dressed up as Darth Vader, wearing a garbage bag for a cape, and assaulted the founders of a group calling itself the Jedi church was given a suspended sentence Tuesday.

I’m at ur house, steelin ur poohs.

Apparently the odd Vader raider (Arwel Wynne Hughes) walked into the church and whacked Master Jonba Hehol (aka Barney Jones) and Master Mormi Hehol (aka Michael Jones) with his crutches.  The photo above is ganked from some family’s website, for I lack a photo representation of the real perpetrator.

Unfortunately for Hughes, his March attack was recorded on a video camera that the cousins had set up to film themselves in a light saber battle.

“Darth Vader! Jedis!” Hughes shouted as he approached.

Hughes claimed he couldn’t remember the incident, having drunk the better part of a 2 1/2-gallon (10-liter) box of wine beforehand.

In the 2001 United Kingdom census, 390,000 - 0.7 percent of the population - listed Jedi as their religion.

Fred Phelps Protests Jenna Bush’s Wedding

Who is more offensive, Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church (of “God Hates Fags” fame) or our misunderestimated leader, GW Bush?  At least Bush doesn’t picket military funerals.

Looks like Mr. Phelps planned a protest of the recent Bush wedding.  PDF flier here.  Really, what WON’T these folks protest?  They’re picketing the Southern Baptist Convention!  How on earth did this many crazy people find each other and organize themselves?

I’m not one to advocate violence, but a well placed IED might wipe them all out…

Lawyer Who Made Snarky Comments Ordered to Write Civility Article

From the ABA Journal online:

An Oklahoma attorney has been sanctioned for his snarky remarks to opposing counsel.  A sampling of his condescending commentary follows:

“I am in receipt of your second fax. …. Please stop the charade. Your self-serving comments are putting me to sleep.”

“There are people out there who work hard every day—like teachers, coaches, policemen and firemen. …. Then there are people like you who seem to thrive on creating havoc. People like you have no intention of making the world a better place to live. Their only interest is in making lots of money.”

“Please spare me your phony sermons. I do not want any more of your self-serving letters; save the paper.”

“Can you not say anything in a page or less? Who are you? You’re just a broker who refers difficult cases to experienced lawyers. You’re a witness in this case. Be like a potted plant and sit quietly in the corner.”

The Court’s order is here.  The attorney has been ordered to submit an article directed to new lawyers on professionalism and civility in adversarial proceedings to the Oklahoma Bar Journal within six months.

I, personally, could not imagine writing such letters to opposing counsel (however, I could imagine some of my clients engaging in that sort of behavior - I’ll leave the nastiness to them).  I find that the problems with uncivility in the practice stem from larger city practitioners, where the consequences of making enemies is low.  You can make enemies all day in a bigger city, and there’s only a slim chance that you’ll have to encounter them again, especially if you’re a solo.  I have only encountered one slightly snarky lawyer - he is fairly new, and he is a Columbus sole practitioner.  He makes reference to my client’s “gravy train” drying up, and other untoward remarks.  Hopefully, my case involving him will be over soon, and I won’t have to read his crap ever again.

In our small town, you have to be civil if you want to stay in business.  Case in point - a certain local lawyer (who will remain nameless here) who has engaged in constant flaming of specific attorneys on his blog, has filed ethics complaints against fellow attorneys because they sat next to the wrong person while observing a hearing, has abused the subpoena power of the courts just to track down the identity of someone who criticized him, who asks our judge to recuse himself for silly reasons (ex. the judge is afraid he’ll run against him!), and who has pursued an endless lawsuit against Apple Valley for a fight that really isn’t worth it (if you don’t like being told how to live, don’t live where you have to be subjected to the tyranny of an HOA).  He’s barely out of law school (a little longer than me).  I never see this guy involved in any other litigation.  I honestly don’t know what he does to make a living, it just seems like he pursues his own lawsuits.  Other folks think he’s a nut, too.  Anyways, I wouldn’t be surprised if he is sanctioned like that Oklahoma attorney someday.  I would write or link more, but I don’t want to deal with a huge pain in the ass later.

Oh noes…

The world of politics has reached a new low.

Presidential candidates fight for your vote tonight on WWE RAW.

It would be much better if they decided to settle the nomination in this forum, once and for all.  Instead, they’re all submitting “taped messages” for the WWE viewers.

Can you SMELL what THE BARACK is cooking?!?

Why must you ruin my world, BBC?

Ugh.  Jesus Christ.  Torchwood.

We just watched the season finale.  I’m going to need a lot of wine to digest this.

Spoilers after the jump.

Continue reading »

Sunday, Bloody Sunday

So.  That Aliza Shvarts thing.  Real or hoax?  The school has seemed to claim that she never was impregnated, nor did she miscarry, but she’s plugging on with her story.

After reading her explanation of the project, I’m inclined to think that all blood involved in the project is fake, and the installation is a piece of performance art, including the media frenzy.  Isn’t that her point?  The role of the female body is ambiguous and only defined by whatever judging eye is trained on it?  There is a huge public health risk if you’re using human blood in an art installation (where it could possibly drip on folks).  I don’t think that any school or health department would ever approve a risky project like that without extensive biohazard measures.

She also possibly just could be batshit insane.  Just a thought.

For your civics grade, you get a big FAIL

I’m so over the MVMS bible incident now, however, I am still amazed at the lack of information that runs rampant in our little town.  I’m not a Christian, however, I will stand up for their constitutional rights.  You could say that the Constitution is my bible.  I’m a rampant civil libertarian.  I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it….isn’t that how the phrase goes?

However, I won’t defend the rights of people to be stupid.  For example, many readers who have been commenting in these news article forums have no idea how our legal system works.  Frequently, readers comment that “the Constitution never mentions the separation of church and state”, and they think they’re being clever.  True, it doesn’t specifically say that, but it does say that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.  Of course, that statement is so broad, it has to be interpreted by the courts (as outlined in Article III of the Constitution).  Remember civics class (or even Schoolhouse Rock)?  Remember the role of the courts?  Interpretation!  Balancing!  That’s what they do!  To totally eliminate the entirety of first amendment jurisprudence would throw out a line of case law dating back to the 1800s.  These folks try to make it look like the separation of church and state is a farce and everything is created by new, liberal “activist judges”.  Ugh, I can’t even express how disgusted I am with that argument.  Go take up your argument with Hugo Black.  Or better yet, go take it up with Jefferson and Madison!  They’re the ones who coined the phrase “separation of church and state”!  That’s what they meant when they drafted the Constitution!

These flapping-head folks are usually just parroting the strict interpretationalist theory of the Constitution, which is so often espoused by uninformed talk radio and Fox News folks.  It goes like this: “The Constitution should only be read word for word and nothing more.  Blah, blah, blah, the rest of you are stupid and judges legislate from the bench and they should all be canned”.  If this were true, they would have to totally throw out Article III.  They would also have strictly interpret the equal protection clause as well, and give equal rights to gays and lesbians.  “No state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”.  Sounds like a case for strict interpretation to me

Phone sex.

So, can a teenager be adjudicated a delinquent child for “disseminating matter harmful to juveniles”? By “matter”, I mean, “cell phone photos of his junk”. And by “juveniles”, I mean “girls who had already sent him photos of their female bits”. Apparently this happens pretty frequently.

I can definitely understand the logic behind the charge, if there was an adult involved. I can understand why a concerned mother would report the photos on her daughter’s cell phone to the police, especially since she didn’t know if they were from an adult or a teenager. However, what I can’t understand is why the teenager was actually charged. Now he may be facing a Tier I sexual offender classification. Teenagers steal their dad’s Playboys and give them to their friends, right? They send links to porn sites via email, right? Teenagers will be teenagers, especially at this stage of their sexual curiosity. WHY IS THIS AN ISSUE FOR JUVENILE COURT? PARENTS, JUST TAKE AWAY THEIR DAMN CELL PHONES AND BE DONE WITH IT!